Reason Number 2

[ixtow]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

With practice you will find the ability to draw and fire from retention in close to a second flat.

I like most of your post. So, to be succinct, I only quoted the part I don't like. ;-)

I'm sure there are a few modes of CC that you can get at your weapon and have a reasonably aimed shot off in under a second, or only slightly more. You probably can't draw and fire from OC a whole lot faster.

But this debate, inexorably, focuses on how fast you can draw your weapon from cover if/when you need it. CCers, by necessity, draw the debate in that direction because they never have any other option. From the CC perspective, there is no prevention. So, the debate always moves on to the next step.

This entire thread is a brilliant, flashing, in-your-face example of this. CCers are conditioned to not even think about the preventive effect of OC, because as CCers, they have never had any of it to call their own. They completely skip the notion of visual prevention when discussing self-defense, because, for them, there never has been any. I don't think most even realize they skip that step, because, in their mind, it doesn't exist. It is a conditioned response. Recognizing visual prevention is usually done only as a backtracking insult. Those who defend it with insults have already taken two steps away from rational thinking.

1) Allowing themselves to skip a step in the thought process and presume it does not exist.

2) Recognizing it after-the-fact, but then choosing to be slanderous instead of rational.

OC is about not having to go to the next step. OC is 'how fast you can draw' becoming relevant. OC is about not having to draw at all, forget how fast or from where. But, if you do, you can be damn sure that you can pull a 1911 'from your hip' a lot faster than a P-3AT from a molded wallet holster in your back pocket.

Not to mention: 9x .45 > 7x .380

We all say "I carry, but hope I never have to use it." OC is one very large step towards making certain that you don't have to.

I have only two options for carry. Mid-size frame at 6 O'Clock IWB, or Mouse Gun in Wallet Holster. Anything else will print or be easily exposed. Even 6 O'Clock IWB isn't very good for bending over, lifting, reaching, etc. When sitting/driving, I may as well not even have it... I've got a real-life event to cover that, too.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

Try a tuckable holster. These are holsters you can tuck a shirt over your piece. Just be sure to practice using your offhand to untuck quickly. (tip- don't pull your shirt up from the front, cross your offhand as far over to above your weapon as possible and pull up, if your piece is too far behind your hip, try reaching far over your shoulder and yanking your shirt up.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ev239#p/u/4/DaWyS3cTMHA

Wear a collart 3 button polo and khaki shorts nobody will think twice about you tucking your shirt in the summer. (plus it looks dorky and non threatening) :dude:

notice this guy is also using velcro clips to the back of the belt, they are harder to spot than j-hooks.

1) No way I would ever be caught dressing like that! :lol:

2) It uses both hands. You just described in your own example how one would quite probably need one hand to divert the aggressor's weapon and simultaneously draw with the other.

3) I've tried it. Shirt tends to get caught on the bottom of the handle/grip. Pulling up the shirt yanks the gun out and it hits the ground... Much better just going 6' O'Clock IWB un-tucked. The curve of the small of my back makes a convenient cubbie hole for a larger frame anyway. Plus, one hand draw.

6 O'Clock IWB is the best I've come up with. Sitting/Driving, I only have to lean forward a bit. Slow, but (just barely) better than nothing... I'm pretty quick standing.

If I ever get to AZ, I'm having a coming out party. Ha!

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

You may have overlooked the rest of my post, where I said OC does indeed provide deterrent.

My post was in response to the original post on page 1, where the person who started this thread gave a scenario.

There is no question OC is by far the greatest deterrent you can have for yourself, or anyone in your immediate vicinity being attacked. I think where the question gets really sticky is, although your only responsible for your own safety, when you OC, the person that would have attacked you is now going to attack someone else, who most likely won't be able to defend themselves like we can. Its one of those moral delimmas individuals must decide for themselves.

If your a married father of two, your resposibilities are clear, and OC would be best for you.

I, on the other hand, am a single non-parent who would rather CC and increase my risk of contact with a violent attacker if it means keeping that attack from being deferred to a single mother of 2 walking home from her second job. The only time I OC is when I think I'll be in a situation where I'll be able to invite comment, talk to an uninformed citizen, and maybe change how they think about gun owners/ownership. Or if I dress up for a special occasion I'll carry my 1911. (I've got grips for Xmas, easter, autumn etc.)

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

simmonsjoe wrote:

Try a tuckable holster. These are holsters you can tuck a shirt over your piece. Just be sure to practice using your offhand to untuck quickly. (tip- don't pull your shirt up from the front, cross your offhand as far over to above your weapon as possible and pull up, if your piece is too far behind your hip, try reaching far over your shoulder and yanking your shirt up.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ev239#p/u/4/DaWyS3cTMHA

Wear a collart 3 button polo and khaki shorts nobody will think twice about you tucking your shirt in the summer. (plus it looks dorky and non threatening) :dude:

notice this guy is also using velcro clips to the back of the belt, they are harder to spot than j-hooks.

1) No way I would ever be caught dressing like that! :lol:

2) It uses both hands. You just described in your own example how one would quite probably need one hand to divert the aggressor's weapon and simultaneously draw with the other.

3) I've tried it. Shirt tends to get caught on the bottom of the handle/grip. Pulling up the shirt yanks the gun out and it hits the ground... Much better just going 6' O'Clock IWB un-tucked. The curve of the small of my back makes a convenient cubbie hole for a larger frame anyway. Plus, one hand draw.

6 O'Clock IWB is the best I've come up with. Sitting/Driving, I only have to lean forward a bit. Slow, but (just barely) better than nothing... I'm pretty quick standing.

If I ever get to AZ, I'm having a coming out party. Ha!

This was in response to someone who said they needed 3 layers of clothing to conceal a gun and therefore couldn't do it in summer. I forgot to quote them. It isn't ideal, but it is an option. Its all about options. Do whats best for you, just don't expect it to be the best for everyone.

Also, you may have better luck avoiding the shirt catching the heel of your gun with an "FBI style" forward cant. Have you tried magazines which do not protrude at the bottom? (i.e. for 1911 use mag with plastic base plate or grind down the lip on front side of mag.)

 

[ixtow]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

You may have overlooked the rest of my post, where I said OC does indeed provide deterrent.

My post was in response to the original post on page 1, where the person who started this thread gave a scenario.

There is no question OC is by far the greatest deterrent you can have for yourself, or anyone in your immediate vicinity being attacked. I think where the question gets really sticky is, although your only responsible for your own safety, when you OC, the person that would have attacked you is now going to attack someone else, who most likely won't be able to defend themselves like we can. Its one of those moral delimmas individuals must decide for themselves.

If your a married father of two, your resposibilities are clear, and OC would be best for you.

I, on the other hand, am a single non-parent who would rather CC and increase my risk of contact with a violent attacker if it means keeping that attack from being deferred to a single mother of 2 walking home from her second job. The only time I OC is when I think I'll be in a situation where I'll be able to invite comment, talk to an uninformed citizen, and maybe change how they think about gun owners/ownership. Or if I dress up for a special occasion I'll carry my 1911. (I've got grips for Xmas, easter, autumn etc.)

I am the guy who started this thread. ;-)

I didn't overlook it, I just don't believe in preaching to the choir about things already agreed upon. We can attaboy each other all day, what good is it?

The moral dilemma you mention seems plausible, but it's converse seems equally plausible. I say 'seems' and 'plausible' becasue it is very unlikely that, even if it were true, an attacker of any sort would describe to the world how s/he overlooked the armed man and then proceeded to attack the willing victim. It is equally plausible that the single mother of 2 might be CCing, might see an OCer and strike up a conversation, become an OCer herself, that the attacker would be so unnerved that s/he chooses a different path... Your presentation of the 'moral dilemma' seems to ignore these other equally plausible possibilities, in favor of a frame to lend support to your position.

Frankly, if a single mother of two is actively advertising her helplessness... For shame. It isn't my fault if she makes those choices. It isn't my fault if she values propaganda, ignorance, etc., more than her own lovely excuses for extra alimony, welfare, child support... I don't mean to say that all single mothers are such people. Just that one who doesn't care about her kids enough to protect them, probably has them around for a different reason than that she is a good parent (obviously not) who loves her kids (obviously doesn't)...

At least I cared enough to OC as she walked by and gave me a dirty look, and got in her car covered with Obama stickers... Way to nurture, high-five...

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

simmonsjoe wrote:

You may have overlooked the rest of my post, where I said OC does indeed provide deterrent.

My post was in response to the original post on page 1, where the person who started this thread gave a scenario.

There is no question OC is by far the greatest deterrent you can have for yourself, or anyone in your immediate vicinity being attacked. I think where the question gets really sticky is, although your only responsible for your own safety, when you OC, the person that would have attacked you is now going to attack someone else, who most likely won't be able to defend themselves like we can. Its one of those moral delimmas individuals must decide for themselves.

If your a married father of two, your resposibilities are clear, and OC would be best for you.

I, on the other hand, am a single non-parent who would rather CC and increase my risk of contact with a violent attacker if it means keeping that attack from being deferred to a single mother of 2 walking home from her second job. The only time I OC is when I think I'll be in a situation where I'll be able to invite comment, talk to an uninformed citizen, and maybe change how they think about gun owners/ownership. Or if I dress up for a special occasion I'll carry my 1911. (I've got grips for Xmas, easter, autumn etc.)

I am the guy who started this thread. ;-)

I didn't overlook it, I just don't believe in preaching to the choir about things already agreed upon. We can attaboy each other all day, what good is it?

The moral dilemma you mention seems plausible, but it's converse seems equally plausible. I say 'seems' and 'plausible' becasue it is very unlikely that, even if it were true, an attacker of any sort would describe to the world how s/he overlooked the armed man and then proceeded to attack the willing victim. It is equally plausible that the single mother of 2 might be CCing, might see an OCer and strike up a conversation, become an OCer herself, that the attacker would be so unnerved that s/he chooses a different path... Your presentation of the 'moral dilemma' seems to ignore these other equally plausible possibilities, in favor of a frame to lend support to your position.

Frankly, if a single mother of two is actively advertising her helplessness... For shame. It isn't my fault if she makes those choices. It isn't my fault if she values propaganda, ignorance, etc., more than her own lovely excuses for extra alimony, welfare, child support... I don't mean to say that all single mothers are such people. Just that one who doesn't care about her kids enough to protect them, probably has them around for a different reason than that she is a good parent (obviously not) who loves her kids (obviously doesn't)...

At least I cared enough to OC as she walked by and gave me a dirty look, and got in her car covered with Obama stickers... Way to nurture, high-five...

The chance that a BG would pick two victims in a row who carry a weapon is very unlikely. statistically, the fact that his first contact was with someone who carries means the odds his next target carries is actually less than usual. and this is with the odds being low to begin with.

Think of a roulette wheel. on any given spin, there is a 50% chance you get red/black. Lets say I'm gonna give you 2 spins of the wheel.
On your first spin, you hit black. You only get one more spin. What is the chance you'll hit black again? surprise, its only 25%.

Now, that was with 50% chance. What percentage of people carry? You can see how the likelihood of the next victim being armed(if your first intended victim turns out to be OCing) is very small.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

ixtow wrote:

simmonsjoe wrote:

You may have overlooked the rest of my post, where I said OC does indeed provide deterrent.

My post was in response to the original post on page 1, where the person who started this thread gave a scenario.

There is no question OC is by far the greatest deterrent you can have for yourself, or anyone in your immediate vicinity being attacked. I think where the question gets really sticky is, although your only responsible for your own safety, when you OC, the person that would have attacked you is now going to attack someone else, who most likely won't be able to defend themselves like we can. Its one of those moral delimmas individuals must decide for themselves.

If your a married father of two, your resposibilities are clear, and OC would be best for you.

I, on the other hand, am a single non-parent who would rather CC and increase my risk of contact with a violent attacker if it means keeping that attack from being deferred to a single mother of 2 walking home from her second job. The only time I OC is when I think I'll be in a situation where I'll be able to invite comment, talk to an uninformed citizen, and maybe change how they think about gun owners/ownership. Or if I dress up for a special occasion I'll carry my 1911. (I've got grips for Xmas, easter, autumn etc.)

I am the guy who started this thread. ;-)

I didn't overlook it, I just don't believe in preaching to the choir about things already agreed upon. We can attaboy each other all day, what good is it?

The moral dilemma you mention seems plausible, but it's converse seems equally plausible. I say 'seems' and 'plausible' becasue it is very unlikely that, even if it were true, an attacker of any sort would describe to the world how s/he overlooked the armed man and then proceeded to attack the willing victim. It is equally plausible that the single mother of 2 might be CCing, might see an OCer and strike up a conversation, become an OCer herself, that the attacker would be so unnerved that s/he chooses a different path... Your presentation of the 'moral dilemma' seems to ignore these other equally plausible possibilities, in favor of a frame to lend support to your position.

Frankly, if a single mother of two is actively advertising her helplessness... For shame. It isn't my fault if she makes those choices. It isn't my fault if she values propaganda, ignorance, etc., more than her own lovely excuses for extra alimony, welfare, child support... I don't mean to say that all single mothers are such people. Just that one who doesn't care about her kids enough to protect them, probably has them around for a different reason than that she is a good parent (obviously not) who loves her kids (obviously doesn't)...

At least I cared enough to OC as she walked by and gave me a dirty look, and got in her car covered with Obama stickers... Way to nurture, high-five...

The chance that a BG would pick two victims in a row who carry a weapon is very unlikely. statistically, the fact that his first contact was with someone who carries means the odds his next target carries is actually less than usual. and this is with the odds being low to begin with.

Think of a roulette wheel. on any given spin, there is a 50% chance you get red/black. Lets say I'm gonna give you 2 spins of the wheel.
On your first spin, you hit black. You only get one more spin. What is the chance you'll hit black again? surprise, its only 25%.

Now, that was with 50% chance. What percentage of people carry? You can see how the likelihood of the next victim being armed(if your first intended victim turns out to be OCing) is very small.

Odds?

There are a few flaws in this argument, but I'll stick to the most obvious.

The BG DIDN'T pick 2 targets that were carrying. He left the OCer alone, remember? ;-)

You also neglected the many other plausible possibilities. Narrowing the 'odds' by considering only the possibilites that suit your position doesn't seem valid to me...

What about the oblivious and clueless who go about simply being really lucky all the time, who see no 'need' until it's them? What about those odds? What about the gender matter? A single mother of two is a more apetizing target than a mean looking 6'3" guy dressed in BDU pants, a tan t-shrit, and tac boots... What moral dilemma do I face with that? Is that my fault, too?

Your argument isn't standing up... It isn't a contest, it just isn't working.

When it's you, the odds don't matter.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

what are you talking about? are you drinking and posting? I have a minor in mathmatics. odds matter to me a lot. why are you being so negative? I feel like you are attempting to bait me into a conflict. we're supposed to be ont he same side here.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

what are you talking about? are you drinking and posting? I have a minor in mathmatics. odds matter to me a lot. why are you being so negative? I feel like you are attempting to bait me into a conflict. we're supposed to be on the same side here.

No at all. Just trying to get you to notice that 'the odds' you're talking about are created from a limited pool of possibilities that suit only the outcome you are trying to support. That isn't a valid scientific method, and I think you know that to be true.

I'm not being negative at all. I'm pointing out that One person carrying a firearm does not create a 'responsibility' for what happens to those who don't. There are many dozens of reasons why a BG might choose one target over another. One day, or the next, or none at all...

People who do nothing to prevent harm are inviting it. The fault and moral responsibility of it lies only with the person who makes that choice.

I understand your position of allowing it to be you who has to deal with a BG, than the unprepared, oblivious, etc. But those people are already targets to begin with. You carrying did not cause them to become any more of a target than they already were.

I'm not trying to be confrontational. You seem to be a very rational person. Probably the only person with whom I have had a difference of perspective that was worth talking to here. I take you for being intelligent enough to note this flaw. I'm just pointing at it. If that makes you uncomfortable, well, it should. But it is not an effort to goad you.

If anything, it's hope and respect. I wouldn't bother otherwise.

Oh, and I don't drink. Nor imbibe or ingest by any means any sort of mind-altering substance of any kind.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

I agree it does not create a responsibility to the 'next' victim.
I agree they are responsible for themselves.

I agree taking on the BG in place of the hapless is not a moral
issue in the sense of right/wrong. I may have misrepresented
it as such.

Its more akin to the morality of charity. Its like extra credit.
Looking out for the Sheeple in my own way, instead of their
own public welfare system. (which is forced charity?)

Does that sound Libertarian to anyone else?

Anyways. Although I am correct in the correlation between
intended victims, you are also correct in, that logic does not
have anything to do with responsibility.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

P. S. I wonder if this means I can deduct ammo off my taxes as a charitable contribution.


Sounds like a GREAT way to get audited.

 

[jay75009]

imported post

90% of criminals run off of a "i am in control basis" they use fear , intimidation and violence to control submissives into doing what they want, and getting what they want. OCing absolutey destroys that mindset, they see a weapon and know that one is not a "submissive" and even if they disarm us, we WILL NOT be victems.........therefore detering them from attacking us in the first place.



Option 1: attack the OC'er and probably die in the process

Option 2: do not attack to OCer and live to see another day

that is the usual instant mindset of a criminal, because as before mentioned they control on fear, if you scare them.........they know they are not in control ;-)

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

Your snapshot of the BG is correct. ixtow and I are hashing the more complicated and
multifaceted construct of the BG as part of a limited system that may or (most likely) may not scale to society as a whole.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

jay75009 wrote:

90% of criminals run off of a "i am in control basis" they use fear , intimidation and violence to control submissives into doing what they want, and getting what they want. OCing absolutey destroys that mindset, they see a weapon and know that one is not a "submissive" and even if they disarm us, we WILL NOT be victems.........therefore detering them from attacking us in the first place.



Option 1: attack the OC'er and probably die in the process

Option 2: do not attack to OCer and live to see another day

that is the usual instant mindset of a criminal, because as before mentioned they control on fear, if you scare them.........they know they are not in control ;-)

Although your 90% figure is out of thin air, I would hypothesis an even higher percentage
if we were to correctly state Violent Offenders instead of criminals. They are fueled by feelings of not being in control of their personal lives/destiny. Exerting control on others is like a drug.

 

[jay75009]

imported post

actualy my 90% is dead on target i have a Masters in Criminal Psychology. i study these dirt bags for a living. they feed off of others fear and hopes that if they comply they will get away safe, but most of the time the BG will brutaly beat or kill the person. the other 10% are the people who steal from wal-mart, commit check fruad, burglarise cars on the streetand steal identities. but they are really not a threat to our physical safety.

i was talking about the 90% that consist of :

Bank robbers, hostage takers, rapists, muggers, those who do store robberies, random assaults,carjackings,pedophilia, kidnapingsect.

and they are the most dangerous kind because they rely on control and are most likely armed. and when you take that control if you hesitate for even 2 seconds odds are thier fall-back plan is to kill you and get what they want anyway. the only option out is to remove the threat instantly and hope to god your attempt works, otherwise your toast. hence why LEO's draw thier weapons when approaching this 90% 100% of the time ;-)

 

[ixtow]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

jay75009 wrote:

90% of criminals run off of a "i am in control basis" they use fear , intimidation and violence to control submissives into doing what they want, and getting what they want. OCing absolutey destroys that mindset, they see a weapon and know that one is not a "submissive" and even if they disarm us, we WILL NOT be victems.........therefore detering them from attacking us in the first place.

Option 1: attack the OC'er and probably die in the process

Option 2: do not attack to OCer and live to see another day

that is the usual instant mindset of a criminal, because as before mentioned they control on fear, if you scare them.........they know they are not in control ;-)

Although your 90% figure is out of thin air, I would hypothesis an even higher percentage
if we were to correctly state Violent Offenders instead of criminals. They are fueled by feelings of not being in control of their personal lives/destiny. Exerting control on others is like a drug.

Ah, this isn't directly on point, but it correlates.

The only difference between Government and Criminals, is the press coverage.

I wonder, how many BGs ply their trade out of desperation? Because they have no other choice, take or die.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

jay75009 wrote:

actualy my 90% is dead on target i have a Masters in Criminal Psychology. i study these dirt bags for a living. they feed off of others fear and hopes that if they comply they will get away safe, but most of the time the BG will brutaly beat or kill the person. the other 10% are the people who steal from wal-mart, commit check fruad, burglarise cars on the streetand steal identities. but they are really not a threat to our physical safety.

i was talking about the 90% that consist of :

Bank robbers, hostage takers, rapists, muggers, those who do store robberies, random assaults,carjackings,pedophilia, kidnapingsect.

and they are the most dangerous kind because they rely on control and are most likely armed. and when you take that control if you hesitate for even 2 seconds odds are thier fall-back plan is to kill you and get what they want anyway. the only option out is to remove the threat instantly and hope to god your attempt works, otherwise your toast. hence why LEO's draw thier weapons when approaching this 90% 100% of the time ;-)

I'm very surprised with that number. exactly what are you defining as criminals? I mean, for every shoplifter there is 9 rapist? I don't want to sound like I'm marginalizing a threat or anything, but that seems very high. can you post a link to wherever you got that statistic? I would like to see who they include as criminals. I have caught 5 people shoplifting, called in dozens of open containers / drunk driving observations, witnessed 3 hit and runs(minor damage). lets say this totals 21 events of non violent crime. I can recall 5 violent crimes, 4 of which I was the intended victim (one of which required lethal force)

So that is 21 to 5. thats close to 80% of the crimes I've witnessed are not violent.
even if I am an atypical sample, which I may be(how would I know), I am so far off of your numbers that I, as a skeptic when it comes to statistics, would need to research that claims sources before I gave it any credence.

So your '90%' is still air to me. No offense meant. Numbers can lie. Numbers in textbooks can lie.

iTunes Penn & Teller's Bu!!sh!t episode on NUMBERS.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

I wonder, how many BGs ply their trade out of desperation? Because they have no other choice, take or die.

Understand, someone who doesn't have a choice(Truly, not imagined) is not a BG. If you steal bread because your afraid your children are starving to death, your not a BG, you didn't even do anything wrong. There are people who, even when they are forced into crime and squalor, would never resort to violence.

Someone who holds up a bank because they need to feed their kids? bullhicky.
If that were true he would shoplift PB&J from 7-11.

The take or die argument simply doesn't apply to violent offenses.
You have non-violent options.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

jay75009 wrote:

actualy my 90% is dead on target i have a Masters in Criminal Psychology. i study these dirt bags for a living. they feed off of others fear and hopes that if they comply they will get away safe, but most of the time the BG will brutaly beat or kill the person. the other 10% are the people who steal from wal-mart, commit check fruad, burglarise cars on the streetand steal identities. but they are really not a threat to our physical safety.

i was talking about the 90% that consist of :

Bank robbers, hostage takers, rapists, muggers, those who do store robberies, random assaults,carjackings,pedophilia, kidnapingsect.

and they are the most dangerous kind because they rely on control and are most likely armed. and when you take that control if you hesitate for even 2 seconds odds are thier fall-back plan is to kill you and get what they want anyway. the only option out is to remove the threat instantly and hope to god your attempt works, otherwise your toast. hence why LEO's draw thier weapons when approaching this 90% 100% of the time ;-)

I'm very surprised with that number. exactly what are you defining as criminals? I mean, for every shoplifter there is 9 rapist? I don't want to sound like I'm marginalizing a threat or anything, but that seems very high. can you post a link to wherever you got that statistic? I would like to see who they include as criminals. I have caught 5 people shoplifting, called in dozens of open containers / drunk driving observations, witnessed 3 hit and runs(minor damage). lets say this totals 21 events of non violent crime. I can recall 5 violent crimes, 4 of which I was the intended victim (one of which required lethal force)

So that is 21 to 5. thats close to 80% of the crimes I've witnessed are not violent.
even if I am an atypical sample, which I may be(how would I know), I am so far off of your numbers that I, as a skeptic when it comes to statistics, would need to research that claims sources before I gave it any credence.

So your '90%' is still air to me. No offense meant. Numbers can lie. Numbers in textbooks can lie.

iTunes Penn & Teller's Bu!!sh!t episode on NUMBERS.

Damn my nose is twitchin' again.

jay75009 I have to throw the BS flag - manufactured empirical data and decidedly unprofessional attitude and reference - too much trash talk.

For your consideration, I offer the following link. You might wish to familiarize yourself with the data therein before you claim that 90% are violent offenders.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#place
There are other studies and stats but I do not feel the duty to supply them to you.

I would be interested in hearing the correlation between your "Masters in Criminal Psychology" (what university?) and your stated employment as an " Armed Security Officer."

Your Profile, AIM: swatteampunk - makes an interesting case in point reference.

Yata hey

 

[ixtow]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

I wonder, how many BGs ply their trade out of desperation? Because they have no other choice, take or die.

Understand, someone who doesn't have a choice(Truly, not imagined) is not a BG. If you steal bread because your afraid your children are starving to death, your not a BG, you didn't even do anything wrong. There are people who, even when they are forced into crime and squalor, would never resort to violence.

Someone who holds up a bank because they need to feed their kids? Bullhicky.
If that were true he would shoplift PB&J from 7-11.

The take or die argument simply doesn't apply to violent offenses.
you have non-violent options.

You can't shoplift a place to live, and such places are artificially overpriced by many orders of magnitude. There is absolutely no justifiable or articulable reason for a home to cost more than a few thousand dollars even at the most extravagant extremes.

I don't want to get off on a tangent of the deliberate wrongs, hate, evil, and perversions of what what our current society calls normal and acceptable. Put simply, it is the opposite of that.

Money is a far more destructive weapon than any knife, fist, or gun. Artificially inflating the cost of living, in order to finance wealthy indolence, accelerates expenses beyond the reach of many. "Working harder" to pay for the waste and destruction of others is no way to live. Everyone has a breaking point.

I'm not trying to blame 'society' for those who rape, murder, etc... I'd say a majority of criminals really are just bad apples with a sadistic need to harm/dominate others.

But what about those who, because of their moral choice to do no harm, cannot be part of the evil and hatred referred to as normal? Where will they live? How will they earn and pay?

I, personally, see an ironic balance between a population that uses money and propaganda to cause carnage on a grand scale being too foolish to carry a weapon to protect itself from the consequences of it's own actions. A huge supply of willing 'victims' that can support the minority that they themselves victimize in a less direct fashion. Such a huge supply, that the rate at which it's victims are forced to return the favor in order to survive is so small, that the majority can be oblivious and never see a 'need.'

I say, it suits just fine. Those who choose to be unarmed are usually the ones doing the most harm to others. Gun-Control is a perfect example; they profit and live the high-life as those whom they subject to anti-gun laws pay the price.

There is no duty to protect those who pull the roof down upon their own heads. Holding those who know better as captives, and forcing them to stand under that roof as it collapses... I see no problem with using violence to escape that construct.

If robbing a bank to pay for the excessive and false costs of living is the only route, I applaud the wo/man who has the various qualities needed to accomplish it.

Robbing a bank isn't a great example, but I recognize many others you could have mentioned.

Carrying a firearm, openly, deters being a target of the needlessly predatory. Those who are reluctant and don't want to harm others to begin with, also. Sometimes, there is no non-violent option. "Normal" has intentionally fine-tuned that mutually exclusive paradox as a trap for it's own sadistic interests.

I have far more respect for the person who commits a few acts of violence (against their own desire NOT to) to break out of that trap and never have to do it again, than those who dedicate their lives to causing the scenario: 'normal' people. Fortunately, the 'normal' people are willing victims. Frankly, I'm glad to see it. They deserve it. I doubt enough crime could be committed to level that Karma out, including the predatory sorts.

Does that sufficiently describe, whether you agree or not, why I take issue with calling it a moral dilemma, and how violence is inherent to a hateful way of life labeled as 'normal?'